In Minnesota v. Dickerson, one protection guaranteed by this amendment was held not to extend to items that could be "felt," although they were extended to those that could be seen. Terry v. Ohio is a major case interpreting this amendment which establishes guidelines for when it applies to cars, although its provisions were limited in Katz v. Ohio. Its major doctrine was first established in Weeks v. US and is known as the (*) "Exclusionary Rule"; that rule, applied to the states in Mapp v. Ohio, provides that evidence
In Minnesota v. Dickerson, one protection guaranteed by this amendment was held not to extend to items that could be "felt," although they were extended to those that could be seen. Terry v. Ohio is a major case interpreting this amendment which establishes guidelines for when it applies to cars, although its provisions were limited in Katz v. Ohio. Its major doctrine was first established in Weeks v. US and is known as the (*) "Exclusionary Rule"; that rule, applied to the states in Mapp v. Ohio, provides that evidence illegally obtained cannot be admitted to court. For 10 points, name this Amendment to the Constitution which provides for protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.
In Minnesota v. Dickerson, one protection guaranteed by this amendment was held not to extend to items that could be "felt," although they were extended to those that could be seen.
The {Fourth} Amendment